Last of Us [PS4]

[patsu]

I thought Enslaved was an ok game, but the graphics is a little too busy, and the story is standard scifi material. I remember people complained about laggy controls and inconsistent framerate.

NaughtyDog should be able to tackle the creative and implementation issues. The rest is probably a big question mark.

I think they pick regular people and location as the building blocks because ND want us to believe and identify with the characters. It may be more corny if the protagonists and settings are far out. They probably picked fungus instead of zombies because they want a reasonable scientific explanation for the enemy behavior too.

 

[Gitaroo]

lead designer for enslaved is only a low level designer for this game, pretty it was posted on gaf already.

 

[patsu]

USA Today article:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/gaming/story/2011-12-12/last-of-us-naughty-dog/51851164/1?csp=34tech

Although the designers don't want to give away the entire story line, the development team recently gave an exclusive inside look into the project. At the start of the game, the lead character, Joel, finds Ellie, and they team up. Joel is "a vicious survivor. When he meets this girl, she is his one chance at redemption," says Neil Druckmann, the game's creative director. "That kind of arc has always been intriguing."

Back in 2008, Druckmann had been mulling an idea for a graphic novel about a father and daughter in a zombie tale. He and game director Bruce Straley were watching the BBC/Discovery series Planet Earth and saw a segment on the cordyceps fungus. At the time, both were working on Uncharted 2: Among Thieves; they had also worked on Uncharted: Drake's Fortune.

In close-ups, the documentary showed how the parasitic fungus infected ants and, having taken over their brains, resulted in protruding growths from their heads. A thousand-plus fungus variations exist, each genetically targeting an individual species. "We instantly thought 'humans,' " Straley says.

The two discussed how "it would be a cool realistic backsetting to a zombie movie where this thing jumped species," Druckmann recalls, "not knowing there was going to be another (game) project."

Meanwhile, Naughty Dog co-presidents Evan Wells and Christophe Balestra had been considering splitting the one-project-at-a-time studio into two teams. "We felt if we didn't expand the roles for people, we could potentially lose them, because they really wanted to be challenged," Wells says. "We didn't want to lose that talent."

 

[Scott_Arm]

The thing I don't really get about why people put so much thought into the plot device as to how people become zombies, is it doesn't matter at all. That's why a lot of zombie movies are ambiguous about the infection. The end result is zombies. If the zombies are different, for whatever reason, then that adds maybe some interest, but in the end, it doesn't make the least bit of difference why they're zombies. They're just zombies. You also get the common line about how, "This story isn't about zombies; It's about people, and their relationships in hard times." News flash - That is every single good zombie movie that has ever been made, starting with Night of the Living Dead. Zombies are boring. Everyone knows that. They've always been boring. Zombies make for a really cheap B-movie monster, and a good way to dismember a lot of people without any of the guilt, because, hey, they're zombies. So far what they've described is straight formula for just about every single zombie/apocalypse movie ever made. Formulas can, and do, often work. Not getting my hopes up for this one delivering a great story-driven experience, but I played Gears of War, enjoyed almost every minute, and it was absolutely balls for story and character.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Awww... don't forsaken us.

It's only that the arguments against me are changed constantly.

Like this: it's got better characters than HR - actually HR wasn't that good - well what was better? - UC2 - but HR is old - HS was older and still better - okay but HR had a LOT of characters - etc.

It's a never ending debate because whatever I say there's always going to be an "okay, but...". So it's pointless.

I'm willing to learn if you explain it in layman terms. Or point us to some articles.

I've already mentioned a few objective points about the tech, poly count, data aquisition, can't really go any further there. Basically, in my opinion HR's devs made production and technology decisions that sacrificed quality for quantity.
The artistic part is more subjective, and a lot harder to explain, especially because english isn't my first language. The short answer is that many games have human characters that look and animate far better than HR's cast.

There may be an argument that HR's focus on digital characters makes it a much larger undertaking compared to games that only have a lesser amount of cinematic scenes and a smaller cast. But even if the studio or the budget wasn't fit for it, and they overextended themselves, it still doesn't make the results any better.

 

[Scott_Arm]

...
The artistic part is more subjective, and a lot harder to explain, especially because english isn't my first language...

Honestly, I would have assumed English was your first language.

 

[Nesh]

I thought Enslaved was an ok game, but the graphics is a little too busy, and the story is standard scifi material. I remember people complained about laggy controls and inconsistent framerate.

NaughtyDog should be able to tackle the creative and implementation issues. The rest is probably a big question mark.

I think they pick regular people and location as the building blocks because ND want us to believe and identify with the characters. It may be more corny if the protagonists and settings are far out. They probably picked fungus instead of zombies because they want a reasonable scientific explanation for the enemy behavior too.

The idea of a living organism affecting behavior has been touched already by Resident Evil 4. There is even a mention in some of the documents in the game about a certain organism that gets into an insect's body modifying its behavior to become exposed to predators so it can be eaten.

Resident Evil 4's enemies in general werent interesting at all. The fungus is a refreshing idea even though similar in general concept.
It may allow for original ideas and art. Sounds more realistic than the undead or the parasites in Resi 4 and 5.

I agree that its good to know that the main characters are everyday vulnerable humans. Unlike the Resi series which started like that but ended up as an action packed zombie game. Even Chuck Norris would have envied Chris' superhuman strength. I mean come on.....Chris was vulnerable and in deep shit in Resi 1. Since when did he have superhuman strength to deal with swarms of enemies and punch a freakin' rock 3 times his size to wherever he wants to?

 

[patsu]

The thing I don't really get about why people put so much thought into the plot device as to how people become zombies, is it doesn't matter at all. That's why a lot of zombie movies are ambiguous about the infection. The end result is zombies. If the zombies are different, for whatever reason, then that adds maybe some interest, but in the end, it doesn't make the least bit of difference why they're zombies. They're just zombies. You also get the common line about how, "This story isn't about zombies; It's about people, and their relationships in hard times." News flash - That is every single good zombie movie that has ever been made, starting with Night of the Living Dead. Zombies are boring. Everyone knows that. They've always been boring. Zombies make for a really cheap B-movie monster, and a good way to dismember a lot of people without any of the guilt, because, hey, they're zombies. So far what they've described is straight formula for just about every single zombie/apocalypse movie ever made. Formulas can, and do, often work. Not getting my hopes up for this one delivering a great story-driven experience, but I played Gears of War, enjoyed almost every minute, and it was absolutely balls for story and character.

Well, from creative standpoint, you can surprise the audience if your zombies behave differently from other zombies. Same for other vampires, werewolves, alien movies and games.

If they formulate their fungus monsters differently, they can tweak gameplay (e.g., social order, affinity to moisture, height and water, etc.).

 

[patsu]

It's only that the arguments against me are changed constantly.

Like this: it's got better characters than HR - actually HR wasn't that good - well what was better? - UC2 - but HR is old - HS was older and still better - okay but HR had a LOT of characters - etc.

It's a never ending debate because whatever I say there's always going to be an "okay, but...". So it's pointless.



I've already mentioned a few objective points about the tech, poly count, data aquisition, can't really go any further there. Basically, in my opinion HR's devs made production and technology decisions that sacrificed quality for quantity.
The artistic part is more subjective, and a lot harder to explain, especially because english isn't my first language. The short answer is that many games have human characters that look and animate far better than HR's cast.

There may be an argument that HR's focus on digital characters makes it a much larger undertaking compared to games that only have a lesser amount of cinematic scenes and a smaller cast. But even if the studio or the budget wasn't fit for it, and they overextended themselves, it still doesn't make the results any better.

Yeah I suspect that's because you gave them the verdict without telling them how you arrived at the conclusion.

Granted, the Last of Us trailer lasts a few minutes while Heavy Rain is an entire game, I think a technical shortcut may limit the visual output.

e.g., I can see the Last of Us animation and expression is more fluidal and consistent than Heavy Rain as a whole. I was wondering if the way HR model the characters restricts the expression or movement in some ways.

In particular, some of the HR characters have unnatural wrinkles. For the longest time, I was wondering why it's done that way.

 

[oramay]

This one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTkifX_GX4A&feature=youtu.be&hd=1

With that lighting and those questions, it does look like an interrogation.

Anyway, I'm glad to see what they're aiming to do with this game, but the direction they're going also sound like a financial risk. I wonder what level of investment is Sony putting into this project.

 

[specwarGP2]

Well, from creative standpoint, you can surprise the audience if your zombies behave differently from other zombies. Same for other vampires, werewolves, alien movies and games.

If they formulate their fungus monsters differently, they can tweak gameplay (e.g., social order, affinity to moisture, height and water, etc.).

Well there's only so many ways a zombie can behave. They used to be slow moving things but after the dawn of the dead remake they're like terminators.

Nowadays zombies arent even undead anymore. They're the result of some scientific experiment gone badly wrong eg (28 days later, I am legend etc)

 

[Rotmm]

It's like interrogating politicians (or Tiger Woods) after their women troubles. ;-)

I couldn't even watch it more than halfway it was annoying me so much. They answered his question, he asked it again, they answered, again, etc. What a fucking monkey that interviewer is.

 

[patsu]

Well there's only so many ways a zombie can behave. They used to be slow moving things but after the dawn of the dead remake they're like terminators.

Nowadays zombies arent even undead anymore. They're the result of some scientific experiment gone badly wrong eg (28 days later, I am legend etc)

It's up to them to invent their own zombies. Some of the Cordycep fungi will change the behavior of the host to move to an optimal breeding location. It would be interesting to see how the fungus people spread their spores.

The most recent and refreshing take on zombies is probably Plants vs Zombies.

But in the Last of Us, they merely serve as the backdrop to tell ND's "love story".

 

[patsu]

I couldn't even watch it more than halfway it was annoying me so much. They answered his question, he asked it again, they answered, again, etc. What a fucking monkey that interviewer is.

I know where he's coming from. ND said they didn't think Move is suitable for U3 and LoU. But there is a 3rd person adventure + platforming + shooting game that uses Move extremely well. That game is inFamous 2.

He's simply probing the ND folks to see how far/deep they have considered the subject.

inFamous 2 is similar in this regard. The developers rejected Move support in 2009 during development. However, they released the stellar Move version in 2010. We shall see if ND will reconsider a year or two later.

 

[Antan]

In ND I trust!

 

[goonergaz]

In ND I trust!

I don't understand how they have earn't such blind faith!? ;o)

 

[manux]

I'm I the only one that catches "Leon" vibe from this game?

 

[Arwin]

I couldn't even watch it more than halfway it was annoying me so much. They answered his question, he asked it again, they answered, again, etc. What a fucking monkey that interviewer is.

Maybe you should watch the whole thing. He was pressing them to see if they actually had a clue what they were talking about. They didn't.

 

[KongRudi]

The lead designer from Enslaved is working on this, makes me a bit less excited, to say the least.....hopefully this game will actually have gameplay....

It's not like he's making the game, while the reamining hundred people on the team sits around him pointing at his screen and suggest what they want in there..

 

[patsu]

I'm I the only one that catches "Leon" vibe from this game?

Heh heh... I did ! Look here:
http://www.officialplaystationmagaz...t-of-us-concept-art-shows-potential-gameplay/

What zombies ?


EDIT:
Loooooook ! A Dark Souls bonfire !